Pennsylvania

Energy. Environment. Economy.

Impact Fee Authors Say Public Health Expert’s Fears Unfounded

Scott Detrow / StateImpact Pennsylvania

Patrick Henderson is Governor Corbett's Energy Executive, and one of the chief authors of the impact fee law.

As public health advocates raise alarms over language in the new state impact fee law that they say would violate medical ethics, key authors of the legislation say environmentalists actually lobbied for the language.

Drew Crompton, state Sen. Joe Scarnati’s chief of staff, says the provision was borrowed from a law recently passed in Colorado.

“The real reason that we revamped language from previous versions was at the behest of the environmental groups, which thought we should follow the Colorado law,” says Crompton. “That law was considered the gold standard.”

At issue are requirements that health-care workers must sign confidentiality agreements before they can access proprietary information that would help them treat patients who may have come in contact with drilling chemicals. The law does force companies to publicly disclose the non-proprietary information, which health-care workers can access easily through the website Frac-Focus.org.

Health providers can gain access to proprietary, or trade secret, information in order to treat a patient. But the law requires the health-care worker to sign a confidentiality agreement that says the information can be used only to treat an individual patient.

Dr. Jerome Paulson, professor of pediatrics & public health at George Washington University, says the law runs counter to medical ethics.

“All of the oaths (of the medical profession) require us to work for the good of the public in addition to the individual patients,” said Paulson in a phone interview. “So blocking our ability to collect and share information, or make the collection and sharing of information more cumbersome, means we won’t be able to fulfill our responsibilities.”

But the governor’s energy executive, Patrick Henderson, says people like Paulson are “either misinformed or intentionally mis-leading people.”

In an email, Henderson says public-health officials and workers will have access to the information needed to protect public health. He says the conclusion that the impact fee law may harm the delivery of medical care to injured workers and residents is “absolutely and patently absurd.”

Both Henderson and Crompton say the language was championed by environmental groups such as the Pennsylvania Environmental Council. The PEC’s John Walliser confirmed his role in drafting the language. He says the original bill did not provide medical professionals any access to the proprietary information.

“This was a compromise,” says Walliser.  ”We wanted something in there that said if someone needed information right away, for health reasons, they could get it.”

Walliser says industry opposed the emergency disclosure to health providers, unless it was accompanied by the confidentiality clause. He adds that the confidentiality requirement was in no way meant to inhibit treatment, and he sees it as a fair compromise.

Drew Crompton agrees: “No one was saying, ‘Well, now, we’re keeping these people in the dark,’ just the opposite.”

Crompton says the law, which will not go into effect for another several months, leaves room for improvement.

“People will have to give [state] departments time to make sure these things work out,” says Compton. “If not, we’ll revisit it.”

He says the intent is to ensure full disclosure and protect the health of residents and workers.

At the same time, Crompton says, people should realize that some information truly is proprietary.

“The companies deserve protection,” says Crompton. “You wouldn’t put the recipe for Coke on a website.” But, he added, “Trade secrets shouldn’t outweigh an individual’s right to know if they’re harmed.”

The Pennsylvania Environmental Council’s Walliser says his understanding is that the goal of the rule is to prevent health-care workers from passing on a company’s trade secret information to competitors. Walliser says no public health professionals were present at the discussions that drafted the final language.

Comments

  • Protecting Our Waters

    Public health matters! What are people thinking when they make compromises so deep that the public’s right to know what is making people sick is completely kept secret, under penalty of law, even from other medical professionals in the same practice? It’s outrageous.
         
    This is not a soft drink we are talking about — these are quite literally deadly chemicals, radioactive materials, heavy metals and volatile organic chemicals we are talking about. These are carcinogens, neurotoxins, endocrine disruptors and biocides we are talking about. The nurse in Durango, Colorado who went into a coma after being exposed to a worker in the emergency room who’d been splashed with fracking fluid could tell you about that.
         
    But she cannot tell you, to this day, what she was exposed to. Because her physician was sworn to secrecy. Can no one see how absurd this is?      

    The fundamental fact is that no physicians, public health researchers, public health experts or public health advocates were involved in crafting this terrible law. HB1950 butchers the interests of the public by requiring doctors to keep information secret which is vital to protecting public health.      

    We already have too many people suffering from abdominal pain, severe headaches, nosebleeds, seizures, dizziness, blackouts and other symptoms — not to mention all the dead and stillborn animals — in shale country and it’s already far too hard for doctors and the public to get desperately needed information. Every kind of testing is prohibitively expensive: air testing, water testing, and bio-monitoring — and that’s even if you know exactly what contaminants you’re looking for. The secrecy enshrined in HB1950 ensures that doctors and researchers don’t know what to look for. And FracFocus is not real disclosure, it’s just an industry PR stunt to make it seem “as if” they are disclosing, when they are not disclosing vital details like the actual chemical mixtures, amounts and concentrations.     

    FracFocus has been well-debunked by Amy Mall on her NRDC blog. For example, she points out that FracFocus only includes chemicals listed on the companies’ MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheets):   

    “In an analysis of 980 oil and gas products, it was found that the MSDS for almost half of them (421) reported less than 1% of the total composition of the product, only 30% (291) provided information on more than half of the chemical composition, and only 133 products (14%) had information on more than 95% of their full composition.” 

    Proportions matter. If your child was splashed with a liquid formula, wouldn’t you want to know whether it was 97% hydrochloric acid, 2% benzene and 1% grape juice, or 97% grape juice, 2% hydrochloric acid and 1% benzene? Or if your child drank something dangerous wouldn’t you want to know whether it was .0003% ethylene glycol vs 30% ethylene glycol?

    The industry is rubbing its hands in glee. The industry likes it this way. Why? It makes it that much harder for the lawyers for impacted families to win, and it makes it that much harder for the public to understand the scale of the destructive impact the toxic materials from fracking processes have, both when they move through water and through air. Jelly-spined politicians who voted for HB1950, violating the public Right to Know and gutting municipalities’ right to protect their residents — attacking public health straight on in both cases — should be thrown out of office.

  • Jerry Silberman

    The Pennsylvania Environmental Council has consistently been a booster to the gas industry, with no knowledge or interest in of public health.The name of the organization being a classic example of Orwellian newspeak. Was the American Public Health Association consulted on the language? How about the Pennsylvania Medical Society? The entire notion of trade secrets is fraudulent; there are only a few companies that actual drill, as opposed to many that own the wells, and the notion that they have secrets from each other is naive. The secrets serve only to guard the industry, as a whole, against accountability to the public.

    The delays in provision of information will hurt patients, and also serve to identify to the industry people who are injured by their actions — so the industry can contact them and attempt to silence them with financial compensation…something that the patient’s should be entitled to as a matter of right.

    • Info

      Agree

  • http://www.gastruth.org/ Berks Gas Truth

    Wow, I hardly know where to begin! It’s amazing to me that an author who avails herself of a technology designed to allow for the quickest dissemination of information to the widest audience in history thinks that somehow the abilty to share uninformed opinions is more critical than the ability to share life-saving information.

    There is no reason why her well-being or mine or or yours or anyone’s should be put at risk because a corporation doesn’t want to share the contents of its products. The failure of Congress year after year to toss out the Halliburton Loophole by passing the FRAC Act is shameful. The idea that laws are being written in Pennsylvania and Colorado to further safeguard the polluters whose poisonous products are obviously making people sick is unimaginable. Or, I should say, it would be if the money being thrown at our elected officials by these same polluters wasn’t so well-documented.

    Apparently, none of the cheerleaders for the industry won’t mind if their child dies because the physician who successfully treated another child in another hospital for the same chemical exposure wasn’t at liberty to discuss the diagnosis and treatment. I’ll mind. So should you.

  • Joe Babiasz

    Here’s what is “patently absurd” :

    1) Drafting legislation that impacts public health … without involving physicians.
    2) A political adviser calling a professor of public health “misinformed” about medical ethics.
    3) Comparing a cocktail of carcinogens, neurotoxins, and radioactive material to a soft drink.

    “The com­pa­nies deserve pro­tec­tion”?  When PEOPLE end up in the hospital due to fracking chemicals, it is those PEOPLE who deserve protection – not companies.

  • Donohoe

    I feel like I am in the Twilight Zone.  Since when did the protection of a corporation’s “trade secrets” trump public and environmental health?  As far as I know, Coke does not contain carcinogens; people have not been harmed by exposure to Coke; and there is no fear of Coke-contaminated water being dumped into our streams or seeping into our groundwater.  To compare a soda recipe to the components of fracking fluid is just ludicrous.  Furthermore, Henderson’s comment that Dr. Paulson is either “misinformed or intentionally misleading people” is just another example of the oil and gas propaganda machine.  Dr. Paulson is a pro­fes­sor of pedi­atrics & pub­lic health at George Wash­ing­ton Uni­ver­sity.  What incentive would he have to be misleading?  Unlike those in the oil and gas industry, people like Dr. Paulson are looking out for the well-being of our citizens, our children, homeowners who live near fracking wells, and the workers who risk contamination, but who must be left in the dark as to what they’ve been exposed to. 

  • Claudia Crane RN

    A key tenet of medical ethics is “First, do no harm.”  In nursing, a similar concept is called “Primary Prevention.” The effects of fracking are the antithesis of 1.not doing harm, and 2. preventing injury in the first place. Shame on those who for Bill 1950, and Governor Corbett for signing it.  The new law gives tacit permission for fracking to make people sick. Once a person becomes sick,  doctors and nurses will have to scramble to stablilize the patient, while also scrambling to to identify the causative agents–the “proprietary information”.  And once they identify the cause (if they do) they are gagged–they are prohibited from disclosing this information.  This amounts to trying to close the barn door after the horse has left, and worse, preventing those charged with protecting our health from doing just that.An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.   

  • Poune Saberi, MD, MPH

    As a doctor, who has treated people in severe medical situations, I can assure you that taking time out in an emergency to make a company feel good that their “secret” is safe with me is an absolute road block to saving a life. There is what is called the “golden hour” when someone is in a critical condition, and I for one refuse to fill out ill thought-out paper work instead of stabilizing and paying attention to the patient. The folks who “championed the language” must consider medical care a joke if they envision a doctor running a code while chit chatting with industry personnel and signing on the dotted line at the same time. Which one of these so-called “champions” has ever witnessed and talked to impacted people in 1- shale country, 2- an emergency room, 3- a public health organization? Enough said.  If the trade “secret” is so safe, let it be regulated under TSCA. The community has a right to know, the worker has a right to know, the patient who has had the misfortune of being a victim of oil & gas industry has a right to know.

    • http://twitter.com/knappAP Mike Knapp

      I don’t envision a doctor running a code while signing a confidentiality agreement.  Why? Because that situation is not going to happen.  If a patient is coding, then exposure to hydraulic fracturing chemical is the least of his or her concerns.  And an ER doctor, unless he happens to be cross trained as a petrochemical engineer , wouldn’t gain any knowledge from such a disclosure anyways. 

      When you frame the hypothetical situation inside the bounds of reality, this legislation makes a lot of sense. 

  • Anonymous

    May I weep now? I’m serious. There are tears in my eyes as I write this. My heart is racing. I thought I was inured to being hurt by what my fellow human beings are capable of doing to each other over this gas drilling.  I cannot believe the callousness and cynicism of my State Senator Joseph Scarnati. He trots out his chief of staff to comment for this article, who proceeds to tag a suspect “environmental” group as responsible for recommending this heinous provision that now sullies the law of our state.  Where is the accountability?  How can these people live with the thought that they will deny essential medical information in a timely life-saving fashion? How can they foreclose the opportunity to improve medical care with the information being shared over multiple cases, just because their gas drilling bosses require it to be that way? Do they have no shame? Senator Scarnati never seems to possess the courage of his convictions to face his accusers himself and answer such questions.  I have asked him on multiple occasions to let me set up a meeting with him to listen to people who have been sickened by unconventional gas drilling.  Silence is his abiding answer to me, his constituent. I surely hope more doctors like Dr. Paulson and Dr. Saberi cry out against this most tragic provision of an already awful law.  When it comes right down to it, I hope our doctors put in this ethical bind by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania will treat first as best they can, get the information they need to know about the chemical(s) sickening their patients even if that means crossing their fingers behind their backs as they agree (under duress) to stay quiet about what they learn, and then stand up in their professional conferences to reveal those chemicals, reveal what it took to help their patients, and violate this law. It does not meet the test of being a just law.

  • I’m just a geologist, but…

    …am I missing something?  Trade Secret or not, I beleive all chemicals used by employers must have a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) available for employee review and “sharable” with their medical professionals.  These have been a requirement since 1983 (Federal Register, Volume 48, Number 228).  The data on the MSDS may not share the actual proprietary mixture (because it is a trade secret) but does provide ingredients (or classes of ingredients, e.g., petroleum distillates) and emergency responder information.  Isn’t this adequate for ER evaluation and treatment?  Does the attending need to know that the material splashed on the patient was a blend of 90% water, 8% glycerin, 1% hydrogen peroxide, and 1% propylene glycol or some other ratio?  Aren’t they just going to follow the instructions (on the MSDS) on how to respond/decontaminate?

    • Protecting Our Waters

      Dear geologist, you are definitely missing something. Again, regarding the MSDS, in an analysis of 980 oil and gas products, the MSDS for almost half of them (421) reported less than 1% of the total composition of the product. (For complete numbers see Amy Mall’s NRDC blog post here: 
      http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/amall/why_voluntary_disclosure_of_hy.html ) Physicians working from that 1% of information would be fundamentally in the dark.
            Further, the industry is being completely let off the hook by not being required to disclose what they know about “naturally occurring” contaminants, from arsenic and benzene to radium 226, toluene and uranium, because — get this — they didn’t “add” those toxins to drilling mud or fracking fluid, they just happen to flow back up from the deep earth. So even if the drilling company has the data sitting right there, they are not obliged to share it with a physician even if a patient’s life is at risk. Even if that patient would never, ever have come into contact with those “naturally occurring” contaminants if not for drilling and fracking.     Because residents of shale country have in fact drunk tap water laced with benzene (one example among many is here: http://checksandbalancesproject.org/2011/01/10/small-time-landowners-continue-to-clash-with-big-frackers-in-colorado/;) because workers and emergency room personnel have in fact been made very sick, almost died, almost asphyxiated from inhaling fumes, and because there have been deaths, both from acute exposure and from accumulated exposure (Chris Mobaldi and Jose Lara come to mind) as well as terrible sickness (Stacey Haney, Laura Amos, and too many to name), and because residents of shale country find that doctors are sometimes “over their heads” with knowing how to treat them because not every physician is an environmental toxicologist… these are very serious issues.      It’s not a matter of just decontaminating for a few minutes and the person is then OK. Exposure to some gas drilling contaminants, including toluene, including 2-butoxyethanol, can have severe and lasting health impacts, ranging from severe headaches to death.     No, the MSDS is far from adequate and no, physicians being forced to keep public health information secret from their patients, from each other, and from the public is not OK.  Lives are at stake, information is power, and public health matters.

  • http://eatthebabies.com/ BradyDale

    Colorado is not the “gold standard.” Advocates have a way of accepting mirroring the best existing policy out there. Colorado’s may be the best so far (I haven’t checked), but the “gold standard” is disclosure. If any existing policy is the “gold standard” it is the Safe Drinking Water Act, though even that is probably no better than the “slightly tarnished silver standard.”

  • Hollie

    I doubt any health care professional would share recipes for poison after seeing what it does to a patient.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IUXDHQFVNYHUXZDAU7GZAMOUJQ j_jonik

    Just questions—
    -  Was the Colorado law challenged on Civil Rights grounds regarding restraint of speech…even speech between a doctor and patient and-or patient’s family?

    - How does this affect law enforcement in cases where an autopsy is required? And if cause of death was determined to be Secret Chemical X, would that information not be Public Information, and central evidence in a case? 

    - What explains how independent science cannot, apparently, determine what chemicals are used here, and in what volume or combinations? 

    -  Are there not problems regarding Constitutional right to seek Redress of Grievances…in that a patient will be denied adequate information to even know who or what caused the grievance, namely, the illness? 

    - Are there not International Laws (to which USA is signatory and bound to) that forbid experimenting on people without their knowledge and Informed Consent?   If there is some reason why this doesn’t apply, what is that?

    -  If a doctor discloses the Top Secret chemicals, violating the confidentiality agreement, what’s the penalty?   And, what if a doctor’s computer is hacked, or the Secret Info is otherwise stolen and publicized, what then? 

    - Victims of frack chem exposures are human Canaries in the Coal (or gas) Mine.  With the No-Disclosure clause, how to know when the illnesses caused by this or that chemical require prohibiting that chemical, if not shutting down the “mine”?  There could be an epidemic (maybe there is already?), but no one would know about it or how to prevent it.

    -  How badly might this no-disclosure deal affect Real Estate if doctors can’t tell patients or realtors of Clear and Present Dangers involving a property?  Would it even be legal to sell a property without disclosing such dangers to a buyer?   This would benefit frackers who may then buy up otherwise unwanted properties at flea market prices….if they aren’t doing that already.

  • Info

    The Pennsylvania Environmental Council was on the Marcellus Shale Advisory Council. It appears that one of the few members of the Governors picks to represent the environment actually provided weak and damaging advise for the environment and is boosting the industry and allowing secrecy and trade secrets to outweigh public health and safety.

    • Info

      Correction-  The Marcellus Shale Advisory Commission was the official name of the group in case anyone wants to look at the final report etc.

  • Carrie

    Do they think we are all idiots?  We can read the document our selves.  You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to see what’s going on.  The gas/government is trying to hide the damage as long as possible. 

  • LER

    “The com­pa­nies deserve pro­tec­tion,” says Cromp­ton. “You wouldn’t put the recipe for Coke on a web­site.”

    But there’s a law that says the INGREDIENTS, if not the recipe, must be posted right on the label of that Coke can.

    Not to mention that a person can choose whether they drink or don’t drink a can of Coke. A person can choose to keep his or her own body free of certain foods or ingredients. A person should also be able to keep his or her water supply safe from “trade secret” chemical contaminants.

About StateImpact

StateImpact seeks to inform and engage local communities with broadcast and online news focused on how state government decisions affect your lives.
Learn More »

Education